VK,
For decades I've advocated cross bunkering in it's true form.
I've also felt that the features you cite as impediments at # 15 at WFW and # 11 at QR are also good, with the proviso that they be looked at as flexible or movable.
With water hazards, the permitting process to reconfigure or reroute a stream is agonizing to impossible.
But, if you don't have length at the tee end, like the Maginot Line, creeks/streams that form the architectural and playing impediment can become obsolescent with hi-tech I&B.
Cross bunkers are more easily repositioned.
I don't think you would want to create "target" golf off the tee, but, I do think that some architectural challenges have to be presented.
# 15 at WFW has more than a cross creek defending against the drive.
The slope of the land in the DZ feeds into the creek and left side woods.
Not all holes have that topographical advantage, architecturally.
But, look at the contrast that you and I represent, versus John Paul Newport's recent article in the WSJ.
JPN now advocates dumbing down the game at the green end.
He wants golf to be less challenging.
He wants to remove impediments to fast play.
You and I want to insert more in the way of architectural challenges.
AND, we don't care about their incremental impact on pace of play for existing and potential golfers.
We want to protect the "challenge"
ANGC had the luxury of being able to add length, almost irrespective of cost.
But, how many clubs have that luxury ?
You and I want to protect the challenge by insuring that the architectural integrity, inherent in the challenge, is retained, albeit, shifted.
Others want to remove the architectural integrity from the course, irrespective of the method, in an effort to reduce or remove the challenge from the game.